Stacey Plaskett Received Epstein Texts During 2019 Hearing

Checklist: Report the discovery of texts between Jeffrey Epstein and a Democrat congresswoman during a 2019 hearing; explain how timestamps matched the hearing video; include the congresswoman’s responses and office statement; note prior ties between Epstein and the U.S. Virgin Islands political scene; preserve verbatim quoted messages and the embedded media token.

The story centers on newly surfaced text messages showing Jeffrey Epstein apparently messaging a Democratic delegate during a February 2019 congressional hearing. The messages were matched to the hearing by time stamps and video, suggesting the sender was communicating in real time as questions were posed. This raises questions about whether a witness or witness-questioner was being coached from outside the hearing room. For anyone following Epstein-related fallout, the exchange is another awkward chapter for Democrats who had pushed allegations in other contexts.

The hearing in question involved a high-profile appearance by Michael Cohen, and the text traffic lines up with moments when questions were being asked. Investigators compared the publicly available hearing video with the time-stamped messages and concluded the texts coincided with the delegate’s on-camera activity. That synchronization lets observers read what Epstein was apparently sending while the delegate was on the record. The timing implies more than casual messaging from an outside figure who was already a convicted sex offender by then.

At the time, Epstein was widely known to be connected to the U.S. Virgin Islands through his private island, and the delegate represents that territory. The name in the documents had been redacted, but reporting identified the member by matching the texts to hearing footage and the delegate’s live actions. The congressional exchange then prompted a sequence of responses from the delegate’s office that shifted over a short period, first deflecting and then offering a statement that acknowledged the texts. That statement framed the messages as part of routine public input while trying to downplay any impropriety.

The content of the messages, as recorded, reads like coaching and small talk mixed together, with Epstein apparently prompting questions and commenting on appearance and behavior. The record includes exchanges about an assistant referred to as “RONA,” and short back-and-forths that line up with questions asked during the hearing. The messages do not read like sterile constituent feedback; they look like targeted prompts meant to steer attention or frame lines of questioning. For critics, that is the core problem: an outside actor with a criminal history seemingly nudging a lawmaker during a formal proceeding.

“RONA??” Plaskett responded. “Quick I’m up next is that an acronym,” she added, suggesting she would question Cohen soon.

“Thats his assistant,” Epstein replied.

Newly released documents from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate show that he appeared to be texting a member of Congress during a congressional hearing investigating Donald Trump, and that those texts may have influenced the lawmaker’s questions. https://t.co/4yMKWBEi4X pic.twitter.com/o6LvpsUhDy

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) November 15, 2025

The exchanges continue in the record with personal comments about attire and behavior, and the timestamps place them at key moments during the hearing. The messages include brief compliments and observations, then move to practical questions about timing and the delegate’s schedule. Those shifts from instruction to flattery and back create an odd mix for communications during a congressional hearing, especially when the sender was a convicted sex offender. Observers worried about conflicts of interest note that such familiarity with a public official, in the middle of a proceeding, undercuts the appearance of impartiality.

At 10:02 a.m., Epstein texted Plaskett: “Great outfit.”

“You look great,” he added at 10:22 a.m. “Thanks!” she replied shortly afterward.

At around 10:40 a.m., a broadcast feed cut to Plaskett, showing her moving her mouth as if she were chewing something.

At 10:41 a.m., Epstein sent this message to Plaskett: “Are you chewing”

“Not any more,” she replied. “Chewing interior of my mouth. Bad habit from middle school”

At 12:50 p.m., Epstein asks: “How much longer for you”

“Hours. Go to other mtgs,” she replied.

When questioned, the delegate initially directed inquiries to staff, and her chief of staff declined to confirm or deny the texts at first. That noncommittal posture shifted when the office later issued a statement acknowledging the exchange but attempting to cast it as ordinary input from the public. The statement said texts came from staff, constituents and the public at large, and it included Epstein among those sources while emphasizing the delegate’s record on combating sexual assault and human trafficking.

“During the hearing, Congresswoman Plaskett received texts from staff, constituents and the public at large offering advice, support and in some cases partisan vitriol, including from Epstein,” the statement read. “As a former prosecutor she welcomes information that helps her get at the truth and took on the GOP that was trying to bury the truth. The congresswoman has previously made clear her long record combating sexual assault and human trafficking, her disgust over Epstein’s deviant behavior and her support for his victims.”

That explanation did not satisfy critics who point to a longer history of Epstein’s financial ties in the Virgin Islands political scene. Reporting in previous years documented donations and interactions between Epstein and local politicians, and there were lawsuits related to alleged facilitation of his operations in the territory. Some of those legal claims were later dismissed, but the past connections raise a pattern question that makes these real-time messages look especially troubling to opposition voices.

From a political standpoint, the exchange offers fresh ammunition to those who argue the mainstream media and Democratic operatives pursued selective outrage around Epstein-related issues. Whether this episode leads to formal inquiries or simply fuels partisan commentary, it underscores how modern scandals can ripple across hearings, texts and public relations statements. The key fact is the alignment of the messages with the hearing record, which will keep this episode in play while political actors debate motive and meaning.